Examining arguments from design › The concession in Part XII

Near the end, Philo speaks more favorably about a resemblance between the causes of order and human intelligence. He also considers a restricted proposition about the cause or causes of order bearing a remote analogy to intelligence. The plural and the qualification matter: this is a more limited assertion than the traditional description of one perfect creator.

His language creates an interpretive difficulty. Is the concession sincere, ironic, strategic, or a statement of the modest conclusion that the earlier criticism allows? The dialogue itself gives the reader a reason to ask. It would be too quick to declare the concession meaningless simply because Philo has argued forcefully against more ambitious claims.

The narrator complicates the ending further. Pamphilus concludes by preferring Cleanthes's principles over the others. That closing judgment is part of the work and needs to be read alongside the conversation, rather than discarded because it does not fit an uncomplicated skeptical summary. It also cannot automatically be equated with the author's judgment.

A sincere concession to a remote resemblance would still leave the earlier questions about divine attributes unresolved. Readers may differ about how much religious significance remains, but they should specify the actual proposition being granted before evaluating it.